26 August 2023
Even Wikipedia gets the basic idea correct: Christian Mysticism is not about content, but about the Person of God. The whole body of Ancient Near Eastern mystical religion has always been just that, an effort to build a very personal connection to the divine. Across the entire region, everyone with an ounce of intelligence assumed without dispute that Truth was a Person, not a body of content.
The rise of Hellenism was a rejection of this basic assumption. The trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle served mostly to drain life from human consideration. It depersonalizes truth; all gods die. This is most certainly connected with stuff like the infamous claim of Nietzsche that God was dead, in that a rationalist approach to knowledge drained the life from Him in our thinking.
Theology as an intellectual discipline kills the object of its pursuit. We don't need more discrete reasoning about God; we need to get to know Him personally. That's the whole foundation of biblical mysticism. You are obliged to submit to God as your feudal master. All that business of contemplation is doing your best to find your own path of obedience and service to Him and His realm.
The ancient Hebrew concept of wisdom is a strong acquaintance with the character and personality of God. Do you know Him so well that you can predict how He will react? It's not that hard if you spend time trying to grasp what is behind the intent of His law codes. See them in their own context and those laws breathe life into God's Person in our souls.
And just as any lesser being you might get to know on this earth, no two of us will have the same precise image of Him. It should be obvious we are talking about the same person, but we take it for granted that He doesn't treat each of us exactly the same. We are not the same; He made each of us a little different. Our encounters with Him will generate a certain amount of variation. That's true with children of the same earthly father, so it's surely true of our Heavenly Father.
But there is a lot of common ground, such that when one of His children talks about their experiences with Him, the others will recognize His image in that discussion. That's the grounds for fellowship; it's obviously the same God.
The written record of His revelation is a guide from a specific context. We are obliged to get a better understanding of that context. It is our duty to recognize the contextual differences and learn how to estimate how it would change His demands. What are His priorities? Any discussion of such a question cannot rest on human reason; it must rest on the personal experiences that echo between us.
A genuine "theology" is more about the Person, not the structure and content.
As the variation in personal experience with God varies across the Elect on this earth, through the varied times and locations, in the context of broader historical events, we should expect differences that will separate us, as well as similarities that draw us together. At some point, the separation is too great for our human existence to bridge. In our minds, the question is not, "Who is right?" The question is, "Can we work side by side?" It is wholly impossible for fallen humans to identify a universal intellectual content to which we hold others accountable. We are not capable of arriving there. Further, the Scripture warns that we should not try. It's wrong to assume that your experience with God is normative for the whole human race.
Thus, our position is rightly: "This is where we stand. Will that work for you, too?" We must know that sometimes the answer is, "No" without it meaning they are somehow evil. This is what we mean by suggesting you not take yourself too seriously. It's not that your answers are wrong or right; they will invariably change as you progress in faith. Thus, the only thing that we need to discuss is where you are right now.
And when the Lord moves you later, it will most certainly require some associates to depart and others to join. It's a dynamic thing, not carved in stone. The only thing that makes theology bad is not the answers about who God is, but the false assumption that, upon arriving at some position on something, no further exploration is warranted. There's an awful lot of false meta in our western Christian traditions. We allow the likes of Aristotle to advise us on something he himself rejected.
The Hebrew people bore a broad range of assumptions about reality that are wholly foreign to folks in the West today. But their assumptions were shaped by a direct encounter with God, so ours must be wrong. They assumed that reality itself was somewhat variable, but that God in His Person was not. Rather, in His ineffable wisdom, He was free to move the goalposts that humans could recognize, and it was our duty to adjust. They did not assume He simply assembled Creation and left it running. They were quite sure He kept changing things endlessly, because that's how He reveals to us what He wants us to work on next. We cannot possibly live long enough to satisfy Him completely, and it's okay to face that.
It's not any kind of success that leads us Home, but a desire for the Lord whose home it is.
Thus, my teaching is based on advocating you get to know God Himself, not some system of reasoning about Him. Whether you walk alongside of me, and for how long, is a question only you can answer. I'll welcome you when you come alongside, and miss you when you are gone, but we both must value above all that people are truly serving Him with full devotion.
The word "faith" is not content; it is the depth of submission to our Maker.
Comments
njresrie
How encouraging! Sort of related, it came to mind years ago that the One who made so many colors, shapes, sizes and textures of "everyday" things like birds, flowers and butterflies, that He seems to enjoy variations, and it seems to apply to us as well. The Mandelbrot set also comes to mind. Blessings to you and yours!
This document is public domain; spread the message.